similar to: [X86] Adding a new instruction JUMPB

Personally, I think we should add this. I've personally been annoyed that it is difficult to convince gas to use the short jump encoding. If you use just the right kinds of labels, it uses the short encoding, but apparently because of -mc-relax-all, that won't actually work with clang either. It's all quite complicated, and we should just expose a simple way for the user to ask for

Hello, I didn't get any reply to my previous mail about adding floating point intrinsics to the X86 pattern instruction selector... And I could really need some help. Anyway, I think my confusion was caused partly by an already existing bug in the instruction selection for floating point compares. The case which emits code for the special case of comparing against constant 0.0 does not

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Morten Ofstad wrote: > Hello, > > I didn't get any reply to my previous mail about adding floating point > intrinsics to the X86 pattern instruction selector... And I could really need > some help. Sorry about that, it slipped through the cracks. :( > Anyway, I think my confusion was caused partly by an already > existing bug in the instruction

You are right: select in SDAG has to be poison-blocking as well, otherwise the current lowering from IR's select to SDAG's select would be wrong. Which makes the select->or transformation incorrect at SDAG level as well. I guess until recently people believed that poison in SDAG wasn't much of a problem (myself included). I was convinced otherwise with the test cases that

Hi llvm-dev, I'm trying to reproduce an msan failure in one of the bots, but I can't seem to get the right incantation of building LLVM with msan. Here's what I've been doing: 1) Build the toolchain in one build directory, including `compiler-rt`. 2) Build the toolchain again with the just built toolchain in step 1, but this time with `-DLLVM_USE_SANITIZER=MemoryWithOrigins`. I

Aside: would it be useful to execute a build of the libc++/libc++abi with msan normally during release, and change the driver to look for these msan-built C++ libs when "-fsanitize=memory"? That would drastically cut down on the complexity of using msan. On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:43 AM Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks Vitaly and

Another option is just to run corresponding script from *https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/sanitizers/ <https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/zorg/trunk/zorg/buildbot/builders/sanitizers/>* in empty directory. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:00 AM Peter Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello Dean, > > I've not done this

# Objective Implement an XRay mode 'xray-profiling' that gathers stack trace latencies/durations and builds histograms to provide basic statistics about where time is going in an execution of the application. # Background XRay has two modes currently implemented in compiler-rt: a basic (nee naive) mode and flight data recorder (FDR) mode. Basic mode logging, when enabled, will collect

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:43 PM Dangeti Tharun kumar > <cs15mtech11002 at iith.ac.in> wrote: > > > > Hi Dean, > > > > I have tried with -instr-map-1 and -instr-map-2, it didn't work. > > > > Yeah, I'm looking through the code and it looks like

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:42 AM Matthias Braun via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Some of this overlaps with the features in XRay ( > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-April/098901.html). > > Matthias beat me to it! >From reading the RFC, it seems that some of what XRay is doing on the instrumentation side is very similar to what CSI enables. The

Hi llvm-dev, I've been implementing a tool for analysing XRay traces. A recap of XRay's original RFC [0] mentions a tool that does function call accounting as a starting point. This is implemented currently in D21987 [1], and is being reviewed by David Blaikie. One key issue in that review is the dependency between the log format determined by the XRay runtime implementation in

Hi, The call graphs generated by "*llvm-xray graph*" has function names, while the "*llvm-xray graph-diff*" doesn't shows function names. This is the command I am using llvm-xray graph-diff xray-log.clang.1 xray-log.clang.2 -instr-map=../xray-build/bin/clang -o diff.dot Attached is the portion of the generated diff graph. Am I missing any flag? [image: graph_diff.jpg]

I'm wondering why the lit tests didn't catch this as part of testing rc1 on ARM. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > XRay is tested automatically on build-bots with tests in LLVM and > compiler-rt . Or are you asking for manual testing instructions? > Of these 2 patches, the compiler-rt patch depends on LLVM patch because

> Transforms/InstCombine/select.ll > ================================ > define i1 @trueval_is_true(i1 %C, i1 %X) { >  %R = select i1 %C, i1 1, i1 %X >  ret i1 %R > } > => > define i1 @trueval_is_true(i1 %C, i1 %X) { >  %R = or i1 %C, %X >  ret i1 %R > } > ERROR: Target is more poisonous than source (when %C = #x1 & %X = poison) > > (there are

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Morten Ofstad wrote: >> The case which emits code for the special case of comparing against >> constant 0.0 does not return after generating it's code, so the normal >> compare is also generated! As far as I can tell it should return right >> after this: >> >> BuildMI(BB, X86::SAHF, 1); >> >>

How is XRay tested? IIRC, Renato didn't see any test failures on ARM? Merging sounds reasonbaly, I'd just like to understand what's the risk for the branch. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > Hans, these changes reached trunk in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL292516 and > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL292517 . Could you look?

FYI: Patch is now available for review in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44620. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > # Objective > > Implement an XRay mode 'xray-profiling' that gathers stack trace > latencies/durations and builds histograms to provide basic statistics about > where time is going in an execution of the

Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2017, at 4:17 am, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Dean Michael Berris via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi cfe-dev@ and llvm-dev@, >> >> I've attached a Chrome trace-viewer readable trace of a clang built with XRay instrumentation (additional

Hi all, I am trying to add XRay support to the IR produced by GHC. Getting the basics working is not too complicated after adding the right function attribute but any analysis shows the function names but not the locations of the functions. In particular, I run a program which has been instrumented as follows: XRAY_OPTIONS="patch_premain=true xray_mode=xray-basic verbosity=1" ./llvm

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 02:32, comic fans <comicfans44 at gmail.com> wrote: > > with some dirty hack , I've made xray runtime 'built' on windows , > > > \o/ with more test, I've found that trampoline didn't got built for windows :/ currently cmake didn't